European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 618/03
by Janusz CZEKAŃSKI
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 November 2002,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure and to adjourn its consideration of applications deriving from the same systemic problem identified in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (no. 31443/96),

Having regard to the decisions to strike the applications Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (no. 50003/99) and Witkowska-Toboła v. Poland (no. 11208/02) out of the Court's list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Janusz Czekański, is a Polish national who was born in 1937 and lives in Niemodlin. He was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Cichoń, a lawyer practising in Kraków.

A.  Historical background to Bug River cases before the Court

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 2-5).

B.   Particular circumstances of case no. 618/03

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 12 February 2001 the applicant obtained a certificate issued by the Mayor of Opole (Prezydent Miasta) confirming that he had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by his family. It emerges from the decision that the full value of the original property amounted to 386,326 Polish zlotys (PLN) as of October 2000. The decision stated that the claim had been partly realised. The value of the remainder of the claim amounted to PLN 122,426.

On 17 July 2002 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. The action was unsuccessful. On 15 October 2002 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) rejected the claim for lack of substantiation.

The applicant's subsequent attempts to acquire State property were unsuccessful. The only possibility of enforcing the claim was to participate in competitive bids for the sale of State property. However, the State authorities throughout Poland officially acknowledged the acute shortage of State-owned land designated for the realisation of the Bug River claims.

This fact and the fact that at the material time it was the authorities' common practice to desist from organising auctions for Bug River claimants or to openly deny them the opportunity to enforce their entitlement through the statutory bidding procedure was established by the Court in the Broniowski judgment (see Broniowski, cited above, §§ 48-61, 69-87 and 168-176).

On 5 March 2007 the authorities informed the applicant that, according to the relevant provisions of the Law on the realisation of the right to compensation for property left beyond the present borders of the Polish State (Ustawa o realizacji prawa do rekompensaty z tytułu pozostawienia nieruchomości poza obecnymi granicami państwa polskiego) (“the July 2005 Act”) which limited compensation available to 20 % of the claim, his claim had already been satisfied.

C.  Relevant domestic law and practice in respect of Bug River claims

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 16-17).

COMPLAINT

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, § 18).

THE LAW

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 19-29).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President